apr-dev mailing list archives

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> >
> > > No. apr_hints is a last resort. Actual tests like the AC_TRY_COMPILE() that
> > > Justin did are the right way to do it. We should always try to avoid
> > > hard-coding conditions to the host/library/whatever and *test* for them
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > autoconf was written to use the testing approach, rather than the "know
> > > everything about all platforms" approach that Apache 1.3 used. apr_hints is
> > > left over from the 1.3 days; ideally, we would find tests that would remove
> > > every single one of those hints.
> >
> > Which of the text below do you disagree with?
>
> I disagreed with the use of apr_hints, rather than tests. Your point about
> *timing* of those tests is entirely valid.
It seems to me that apr_hints is the only place where the timing is
correct.
-------/-------
Assume we use the design where we use configure-time tests to
determine when we need to turn on libc feature test macros.
Consider that we have system A where in order to access some pthread
function we have to turn on a feature test macro and we have system B
where in order to access some networking function we have to turn on a
feature test macro.
For system A, we'll want to test for that pthread function before all
other configure-time tests so that we'll be using the same libc
feature test macros throughout.
For system B, we'll want to test for that networking function before
all other configure-time tests so that we'll be using the same libc
feature test macros throughout.
These constraints cannot be satisified unless we restart all tests
any time we add a libc feature test macro or we implement different
orders of tests for different platforms.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...